Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/322,939

PROVIDING BIOFEEDBACK OF COMPUTER GAME PARTICIPANT TO SUSTAIN HEART RATE WITHIN LIMITS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 24, 2023
Examiner
WILLIAMS, ROSS A
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
408 granted / 657 resolved
-7.9% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
713
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
22.2%
-17.8% vs TC avg
§103
40.4%
+0.4% vs TC avg
§102
20.2%
-19.8% vs TC avg
§112
11.1%
-28.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 657 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1- 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elenbaas et al (US 2021/0129032) in view of Aoki et al (WO 2010/010776 A1) machine translation. As per claim 1, Elenbaas discloses a system comprising: one or more storage media storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to cause the system to: receive indication from at least one sensor of heart rate of a player of a computer simulation… (Elenbaas discloses a measurement from a biosensor of heart rate of an immersive game/simulation user; para [0006]. [0029-0030], [0038]); and alter responsive to a result of comparing (Elenbaas discloses in response to satisfying a hear rate/physiological criterion reaction diagnosis/reading (test); para [0041-0042], [0074-0075], [0083-0086]), a first aspect of the computer simulation without changing an action in the computer simulation or difficulty level of the computer simulation (modify the simulation sound/loudness or color/light intensity while experiencing identical game functionality and enemy events (action) or staying in completing a level rating of impairment/difficulty; para [0041]. [0044], [0088-0094]. [0105]. [0111]) Elenbaas fails to specifically disclose: wherein the computer simulation comprises a plurality of scenes; evaluate the heart rate based on a heart rate zone that is associated with a scene of the plurality of scenes and that includes a bound, wherein evaluating the heart rate comprises comparing the indication of the heart rate to the bound; However, in a similar field of endeavor, Aoki teaches the use of game scenes that are associated with a heart rate range or threshold, wherein when the users detected heart rate is compared to the range or threshold of a heartrate zone of the scene, a modification is made to the game wherein one such medication may be the volume can be changed. (Aoki Page 15, par 2-3). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to use a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way by means of comparing a heartrate zone or range that is associated with a game scene, and based on the comparison make a modification to the game. This would be beneficial to the player as the system would be able to modify the game and make the game more or less relaxing to the game player and also improve the realism of the game (Aoki page 15, par 3) As per claim 2, Elenbaas discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the computer simulation comprises a video game (VR image display; para [0029], [0037], [0062]). As per claim 3, Elenbaas discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the first aspect comprises an audio aspect (modify the simulation sound/loudness while experiencing identical game functionality and enemy events (action) or staying in completing a level rating of impairment/difficulty; para [0041], [0044], [0088-0094], [0105], [0111]). As per claim 4, Elenbaas discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the first aspect comprises a video aspect (modify the simulation color/light intensity while experiencing identical game functionality and enemy events (action) or staying in completing a level rating of impairment/difficulty; para [0041], [0044], [0088-0094], [0105], [0111]). As per claim 5, Elenbaas discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the scene is associated with a first heart rate zone and second scene included in the plurality of scenes is associated with a second heart rate zone (the test diagnoses heart rate rises amounts/variability (zones) for reaction increases in response to first and second instances of a respective game events (scenes); para [0075], [0082-0086], [0088], [0105], [0111]). As per claim 6, Elenbaas discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to further cause the system to: alter responsive to the result, a volume of a sound effect or a voice of a character in the computer simulation (satisfying a reaction diagnosis (test) and then changing/adapting volume; para [0037], [0041], [0082], [0088-0089]). As per claim 7, Elenbaas discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to further cause the system to: replace, responsive to the result a first sound effect with a second sound effect (satisfying a reaction diagnosis (test) and then changing/adapting (replacing) to subsequent/second sound effects; para [0082], [0088-0089], [0093], [0107]). As per claim 8, the system of Claim 1, wherein the bound includes at least one of an upper bound and lower (Combination of Elenbaas in view of Aoki as applied above, wherein Aoki discloses the use of heart rate ranges that comprise upper and lower bounds or limits (Aoki page 15, par 2) As per claim 9, Elenbaas discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to further cause the system to: alter, responsive to the result, a brightness of a display (modify the simulation color/light intensity/brightness while experiencing identical game functionality and enemy events (action) or staying in completing a level rating of impairment/difficulty; para [0037], [0041], [0044], [0088-0094], [0105], [0111]). As per claim 10, Elenbaas discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to further cause the system to: alter, responsive to the result, a background image of the computer simulation (adapting the simulation background/overlaying 3D objects; para [0029], [0037]. [0105], [0111]). As per claim 11, Elenbaas discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to further cause the system to: alter, responsive to the result, music of the computer simulation (changing music of the simulation; para [0037], [0094], [0111-0112]). As per claim 12, Elenbaas discloses a method comprising: receiving an indication from at least one sensor of a physiological condition of a player of a computer simulation… (measurement from a biosensor of heart rate of an immersive game/simulation user; para [0006], [0029-0030], [0038]); and altering responsive to the result of the comparing, a (in response to satisfying a hear rate/physiological criterion reaction diagnosis/reading (test); para [0041-p042], [0074-0075], [0083-0086]), presentation of the computer simulation without changing action in the computer simulation or difficulty level of the computer simulation (modify the simulation sound/loudness or color/light intensity while experiencing identical game functionality and enemy events (action) or staying in completing a level rating of impairment/difficulty; para [0041], [0044], [0088-0094], [0105], [0111]). Elenbaas fails to disclose: wherein the computer simulation comprises a plurality of scenes; evaluate the heart rate based on a heart rate zone that is associated with a scene of the plurality of scenes and that includes a bound, wherein evaluating the heart rate comprises comparing the indication of the heart rate to the bound; and However, in a similar field of endeavor, Aoki teaches the use of game scenes that are associated with a heart rate range or threshold, wherein when the users detected heart rate is compared to the range or threshold of a heartrate zone of the scene, a modification is made to the game wherein one such medication may be the volume can be changed. (Page 15, par 2-3). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to use a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way by means of comparing a heartrate zone or range that is associated with a game scene, and based on the comparison make a modification to the game. This would be beneficial to the player as the system would be able to modify the game and make the game more or less relaxing to the game player and also improve the realism of the game (Aoki page 15, par 3) As per claim 13, Elenbaas discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein the sensor comprises a heart rate sensor and the physiological condition zone comprises a heart rate zone (raising above a heart rate amount/target variability (zone); para [0075], [0084], [0111]). As per claim 14, Elenbaas discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein altering the presentation of the computer simulation comprises altering audio of the computer simulation (modify the simulation sound/loudness while experiencing identical game functionality and enemy events (action) or staying in completing a level rating of impairment/difficulty; para [0041], [0044], [0088-0094], [0105], [0111]). As per claim 15, Elenbaas discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein altering the presentation of the computer simulation comprises altering a brightness of a display on which the simulation is presented (modify the simulation color/light intensity/brightness while experiencing identical game functionality and enemy events (action) or staying in completing a level rating of impairment/difficulty; para [0037], [0041], [0044], [0088-0094], [0105], [0111]). As per claim 16, Elenbaas discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein the a first physiological condition zone is associated with the scene and a second physiological condition zone is associated with a second scene included in the plurality of scenes (the test diagnoses heart rate rises amounts/variability (zones) for reaction increases in response to first and second instances of a respective game events (scenes); para [0075], [0082-0086], [0088], [0105], [0111]). Independent claim(s) 17 is/are made obvious by the combination of Elenbaas and Aoki based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1 and 12, which are similar in claim scope. Dependent claim(s) 18 is/are made obvious by the combination of Elenbaas and Aoki based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 5, which are similar in claim scope. As per claim 17, Elenbaas discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor assembly programmed to: receive indication of heart rate of at least one player of a computer simulation (measurement from a biosensor of heart rate of an immersive game/simulation user; para [0006], [0029-0030], [0038]); determine if the heart rate is within a zone (diagnose sensor metrics raising above a heart rate amount/target variability (zone); para [0075], [0084], [0111]); and responsive to determining the heart rate is not within the zone (determine exceeding or not in the zone; para [0075], [0084], [0111]), alter presentation of the computer simulation (modify the simulation sound/loudness or color/light intensity; para [0041], [0044], [0088-0094], [0105], [0111]). As per claim 19, Elenbaas discloses the apparatus of Claim 17, wherein the processor assembly is further programmed to alter responsive to determining the heart rate is not within the heart rate zone (raising above a heart rate amount/target variability (zone); para [0075], [0084], [0111]), presentation of the computer simulation without changing action in the computer simulation or difficulty level of the computer simulation (modify the simulation sound/loudness or color/light intensity while experiencing identical game functionality and enemy events (action) or staying in completing a level rating of impairment/difficulty; Elenbaas para [0041], [0044], (0088-0094], [0105], (0111]). As per claim 20, Elenbaas discloses the apparatus of Claim 17, wherein the processor assembly is further programmed to alter the presentation of the computer simulation responsive to determining the heart rate is not within the heart rate zone at least in part by altering music of the computer simulation (Elenbaas discloses changing music of the simulation in response to being close enough to a target zone of breathing; para [0037], [0094], [0111-0112]). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see above rejection in view of the newly found prior art to Aoki. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /RAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715 10/10/2025 /KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 24, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 14, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 15, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 26, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 16, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 20, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 18, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12481323
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Patent 12450978
COIN OPERATED ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 21, 2025
Patent 12444274
VIRTUAL SPORTS BOOK SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 14, 2025
Patent 12383836
IMPORTING AGENT PERSONALIZATION DATA TO INSTANTIATE A PERSONALIZED AGENT IN A USER GAME SESSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 12, 2025
Patent 12387550
PUSHBUTTON SWITCH, OPERATING UNIT, AND AMUSEMENT MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 12, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+17.2%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 657 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month